Talk:Warren National University/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

States Where Unaccredited Degrees are Illegal

In the past some people were interested in tracking down more detail as to what states made it illegal to use unaccredited degrees and what states had restrictions. I found this tidbit.

Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees?
No. It is also illegal in North Dakota, New Jersey, Texas, Nevada, Washington and Maine to use unaccredited degrees. It is illegal in Indiana to use an unaccredited doctorate and Michigan law limits the legal options of users. Illinois limits the use of unaccredited degrees to those licensed by other states. See those states’ laws for details. Many other states are considering similar laws in order to prevent fraud. [1]

TallMagic 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

More details on specific state laws are available here. TallMagic 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Diploma Mill Link

Avruch writes:
2007-10-09T22:39:59 Avruch; (Undid revision 163425344 by Rkowalke...isn't categorizing WNU, its additional refs for subjects covered.

I agree, didn't think of it that way.
Rkowalke 23:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maintaining WP:NPOV

Maintaining a neutral matter of fact tone in compliance with the WP:NPOV and being an encyclopedia is very important. For example MarkTwain added the following.

The school has been the subject of considerable criticism on the part of former employees and others who believe that it has many of the characteristics of a Diploma Mill. [1] In 2004, the school was one of the subjects of an investigation by a Senate Committee chaired by Senator Susan Collins of Maine. [2]

A more neutral presentation might be something like.

WNU has undergone criticism in the past due to allegedly having characteristics frequently associated with diploma mills. (Note that I don't think that your sited reference actually supports the assertion.) In 2004 the school was part of an investigation by a Senate Committee.[3]

TallMagic 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that I should also explain that I deleted the second sentence as well because it wasn't providing important enough information and that information is already covered in much greater detail later in the article. I hope that perhaps a compromise might be to mention unaccredited in the introductory paragraph? I do thank you for your continued efforts in improving the article, Marktwain. Please don't be discouraged. I suggest that you review WP:NPOV and WP:V. TallMagic 04:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic, You may be interested to learn that Senator Collins has stated that the school is not a legitimate institution. I think it is quite clear, from the testimony of former employees and from the Senate investigation that, to put it mildly, the school does not meet normal standards of quality. We must call a spade a spade and accurately describe the nature of the school.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktwain403 (talkcontribs) 04:10, 10 October 2007

Hi Marktwain403, thank you for responding. I agree with your sentiment. I understand that WNU/KWU has been called a diploma mill many times in many reliable sources. However, we must maintain Wikipedia policy and guidelines. IMHO, the article does get across the fact that WNU does not meet normal standards of quality. HOWEVER, that needs to be a conclusion that the reader is allowed to come to on their own. Wikipedia articles cannot be judgemental. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:V. Also, please try to remember to sign your entries on talk pages by entering four tilde characters ~~~~. I thank you again for your concern and effort in trying to improve the WNU article. TallMagic 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Mark Twain403's comments; you mentioned in your remarks above, "...from the testimony of former employees..." Are you saying there was more than one employee who testified? I've only read of one employee who was employed for three months that provided testimony.
Also, when calling a spade a spade as you mention, it does mean one should hear from both sides before passing judgment. A hearing with one sided testimony is hardly creating a spade's worth of anything to call a spade. As you may recall, when KWU was involved in a legal case with Oregon, the state had to back down from calling KWU a diploma mill or even substandard. So what we have is the only legal case where KWU was at the table, and the end result is the state of Oregon, the most hyper state surrounding education based on my research (and that's not a bad thing either), had to cease and desist from calling KWU a diploma mill or substandard. And, the attorney general's office had to conduct training for Oregon on defamation. lol
Seeing people cling to the GAO case with its one sided commentary from weak testimonials (one three-month employee and one kind-of sort-of student of 12 weeks I think it was) is quite laughable. Your defense for spadedom is pretty weak. Last time I checked where it counted it was KWU-1 and Oregon-0. The rest of the commentary is just that - commentary. Woooo hooooo!
Rkowalke 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Studies indicate that most of the utility of unaccredited degrees is due to the person not being aware of the unaccredited nature of the degree. Having to specify that one's degree is not accredited will make the utility of that degree close to zero. Oregon-1 Diploma-mills-0 TallMagic 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... Although I understand your logic, I disagree with your presumption. What studies are these anyway? That WNU is targeted toward the mid-career professional and corporate education market is why I disagree about the utility. Oftentimes I think the problem is with semantics in one's comparison model that is not defined; not something I want to define here that's for sure. In any event, continuous commentary regarding this matter is a waste of time for many on this page - might as well be trying to defend that the holocaust happened to those who believe otherwise. I'll just go ahead and spend my time trying to get this article to some semblance of harmony...
Rkowalke 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A fellow by the name of Rich Douglas, IIRC, did his dissertation on the acceptance of unaccredited degrees. It involved a survey of human resource professionals. I'm not sure what you mean by "comparison models" but if you think the general public can really differentiate totally bogus pure life experience scam diploma mills from WNU, you're sadly mistaken. If you're interested I can get you the reference details for the dissertation? TallMagic 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
TallMagic, I would ask what "Oregon-1, Diploma-mills-0" is in reference to? Unaccredited degrees and diploma mills are not the same thing. And if you can provide a reference to this Rich Douglas's study please do so.
I would add that becouse one person makes a study and concludes something does not make it true. Sometimes a researcher can be biased and will only include data to support their conclusion.
But to get back to what I was saying, I would like to see Douglas's work before I can comment on it any further. 04:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not available on the Internet. Like most dissertations (except from unaccredited institutions), it is available from Proquest (UMI), Richard Douglas, Union Institute and University. TallMagic 04:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Taylor, one of the recent editors of this article, is also a "graduate" of Warren National. He also has completed a course of study from another mail order outfit called Penn Foster or some such name. Taylor is quite proud of his accomplishments in the mail order degree line with an exceptionally long list of credits of various sorts. But apparently spelling is not his strong suit. Marktwain403 16:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Marktwain403, I thank you again for your interest and concern in improving Wikipedia. You're correct in your observation that there are a number of editors here that have diplomas from WNU/KWU. Regarding Taylor specifically, he's a good guy, IMHO, and does not practice WP:TE. I would also like to inform you that Wikipedia policy/guideline is that it's considered bad form to discuss your fellow editors rather than the article. Please review guidelines WP:AGF and WP:NPA. TallMagic 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Marktwain403, it seems to me that some editors have a stiff sense of what they think their educational qualities are. If your house is made of glass, watch your stone throwing. As far as being a new editor, my history tells it all and I can see you know that since you know my history, therefore, I can see you have already discovered my credentials, while you hide behind your anonymous shield and belittle others whom you think are new to your trolling. I would like to know how your credentials read since you think your editorial and spelling qualities are so great and you expertly tossed them out against others. I don't know what your agenda is, but flaming others will not get you the gold medal that you seek. I can see that you didn’t like someone messing with your sandbox.Taylor W. 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The very fact that Marktwain would put the word graduate in quotation marks seems to suggest a certain bias on his part. 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Marktwain403 has apparently been banned indefinitely from editting Wikipedia due to edit warring. TallMagic 04:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

States where unaccredited degrees have restrictions

Here is what I (Rkowalke 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)) have so far that I'm working on. Below is a draft - please keep in mind when reading... I think this would be very helpful to have in this WNU page and would be very helpful to the reader.

This list is meant as a helpful quick view guide only. It is expected the reader will apply their specific situation to their own applicable research. This Wikipedia page can NOT perform research or provide legal advice or interpretation of specific state law and statutes. If you require legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney.

The table below identifies the nature of the restriction of WNU credentials by each state known to have any limitations upon unaccredited postsecondary institutions. Updates that add/modify/delete information from authoritative sources are always welcome due to changing federal and state laws.

State Type of restriction Date of recent change References
1 California Because WNU is unaccredited, California residents are unable to enroll at WNU. California permits graduates of unaccredited, state-approved degree programs to sit for many of its professional licensing examinations. 9/19/07 [4] [5] [6]
2 Oregon Most public employment, professional licensure, teaching, admission into a graduate school and other degree use requires an accredited degree. State employment requires accredited degrees. In the private sector, references to a degree from WNU must be qualified with the following "Warren National University does not have accreditation recognized by the United States Department of Education and has not been approved by the Office of Degree Authorization." 9.19.08 [7] [8]
3 Texas Because WNU has no accreditation from a Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board recognized accreditor, the state prohibits WNU graduates from using their degree(s) "in a written or oral advertisement or other promotion of a business; or with the intent to: obtain employment; obtain a license or certificate to practice a trade, profession, or occupation; obtain a promotion, a compensation or other benefit, or an increase in compensation or other benefit, in employment or in the practice of a trade, profession, or occupation; obtain admission to an educational program in this state; or gain a position in government with authority over another person, regardless of whether the actor receives compensation for the position." 9.19.07 [9]
4 Illinois Out-of-state institutions, both private and public, must receive IBHE approval to offer degrees in Illinois only if they have established or intend to establish some kind of physical presence in the state. 10.7.07 [10]
5 Indiana Working...
6 Maine Part of the definition Maine attributes to its False Academic Degree or Certificate regulation that could apply to some WNU students are noted in the following, but not necessarily only sections of the reference source: 1. Degree Mill: "...degrees basing more than 50% of required credits on the student's life experience." 2. Substandard School or Institution of Higher Education: "...Issues degrees using more than 20% of required credits based on the student's life experience." As a result, some WNU graduates may be interested in reviewing the references to determine if the code applies to their circumstance. 10.7.07 [11] [12] [13]
7 Michigan Because WNU is unaccredited, a degree from WNU will not be accepted by the Civil Service Commission as satisfying any educational requirements indicated on job specifications. No other known restrictions. 9.19.07 [14] [15]
8 Nevada Working...
9 New Jersey Working...
10 North Dakota Working...
11 Utah Utah residents are unable to enroll until WNU is accredited. Institutions of higher learning should validate any credits earned at unaccredited institutions on an individual basis. Validation may be assisted by information provided by or about the unaccredited institution such as a catalog covering the years students attended, a description of the courses students completed, course syllabi, faculty credentials, and library facilities. 9.19.07 [4] [16] [17]
12 Washington Working...
A U.S. Federal Government Generally requires a accredited degree. "Non-Accredited/Other Education may be considered during the rating/ranking process when evaluating qualified job applicants who already meet minimum qualification standards. Such education may not, however, be used to meet minimum education requirements unless..." (See reference for further information.) For purposes of WNU the "unless" does not seem to apply. 10.7.07 [18]
B U.S. Military Educational Requirements for Appointment of Reserve Component Officers to a Grade Above First Lieutenant or Lieutenant (Junior Grade) require an accredited degree as stipulated in the U.S. Federal Government requirement. 10.7.07 [19] [20]

Rkowalke 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Texas seems to be missing. TallMagic 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... it's in the code, but not showing up on the page. Interesting.
Rkowalke 23:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The above list is very informative from a working model perspective. From an article perspective, I suggest that it would be better to try to summarize it down to a much smaller size? TallMagic 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to leave it on the discussion page - only at the top and make reference to it within the paragraph on degree restrictions...
Rkowalke 23:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Except for the enrollment restriction, it is very general to all unaccredited institutions. Another option would be to include it in the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning‎ or something? Linking from an article into talk pages isn't a good option. TallMagic 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you put the lines/boxes back in the graphic? I think this would be good to include somewhere, assuming its fairly exhaustive, but I'm not sure this article is necessarily the best place. People looking into unaccredited institutions, or the use of unaccredited degrees, would want to see this graphic... But they wouldn't look here unless they were already looking specifically at WNU. Perhaps it should be included in articles about accreditation? AvruchTalk 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Lines back in although I don't recall ever putting them in... oh well.
Adding this table to the List of Unaccredited Institutions of Higher Learning could be applicable. I think that page should be removed from Wikipedia although it has twice been recommended, but then retained. The reason is the Dept of Education already has a page of accredited institutions so that means the inverse is applicable; that is, it is redundant to make such a list because of the Department of Education's list. Better to refer them to the official Department of Education's website than the unofficial Wikipedia page inverse list. Hopefully someone will wise up and get rid of that article.
It would be nice to add the table to the Educational accreditation article in the unaccredited section once it is closer to finalization. Then we can reference it from the WNU page since it is important that people understand the nature of limitations imposed on the unaccredited degrees.
I see Texas showed up once I put in the lines... strange!
Rkowalke 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem sentences requiring resolution on this discussion page before re-insertion into article

It seems the use of peacock and weasel words by the "MarkTwain" account need changing as identified in bold below.

For several years the university has been financially successful targeting those who are unable or would rather not attend traditional classroom courses, where the work is more rigorous. It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due to a federal government investigation.

Peacock problem:

Peacock terms often reflect opinion, not fact, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section. Let the facts speak for themselves.
Weasel words:
Editors inevitably disagree. It is too easy to exploit Wikipedia and use it to spread hearsay, personal opinion and propaganda with Weasel words. Not coincidentally, there is a Wikipedia policy that deals with exactly that problem in more general terms: The verifiability policy, which provides specific criteria for what sort of support a statement must have for it to remain in an article if it is challenged. It is one of our core content policies, determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles - and it is this policy that weasel words undermine.

Need to come to consensus on this talk page prior to including these sentences into the article. Rkowalke 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think more important than the peackock writing problem we've got is the tendentious editing problem we've got, mainly MarkTwain. Personally, I think we should rewind two weeks and reinstate that version of the article, and then add in whatever TallMagic and Rkowalke have agreed should be in the article since then. I haven't reviewed Orlady's recent contributions here, but they may be OK as well. AvruchTalk 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is very little left of Marktwain's direct edits. The only exceptions that I can think of is the article summary sentences being added to the lead paragraph was prompted by Marktwain's edits (but no longer contain Marktwain's wording) and the large quote in the Faculty section, which Rkowalke already cut down to a more reasonable size. TallMagic 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Orlady on Excessive Piping

On 2007-10-23T00:13:40 Rkowalke made an initial edit as follows

Rkowalke m (30,256 bytes)
(→University Name Change - Fixed date to reflect a normal US date syntax when viewing...)

This change looks like this when viewed by a reader:

January 1, 2007

On 2007-10-23T02:08:22 Orlady made an edit as follows:

Orlady (Talk | contribs) (32,185 bytes)
(Undid revision 166407311 by Rkowalke
reverted excessive piping that needlessly equates "January 1" with "January 1")

Orlady's change made the date look like this by a reader:


You said Orlady that you reverted needless and excessive piping, but my edit comment reflects why I changed the format, which was purposeful and not needless.

So what I'm reading Orlady is you do not want the date to look like January 1, 2007 rather you want it to look like 2007-01-01?

Rkowalke 22:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • That's very strange. You are saying that, for you, coding of [[January 1|January 1]] produces text saying "January 1" but [[January 1]] produces "01-01". I assure you, I see "January 1" in both cases, which is one reason why I edited numerous instances where you had coded items in the [[January 1|January 1]] format. My best guess is that there are some unusual settings in your Wikipedia preferences. Go to Special:Preferences and see what settings appear for Date and Time (that's ).
It's also possible that your browser has some unusual preference settings, which could explain your pattern of sprinkling article and talk pages with <br /> codes that apparently appear necessary to you, but result in annoyingly large amounts of empty space for most of the rest of us.
For the record, both of these look the same on my screen: January 1 and January 1
--Orlady 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I went to my preferences and found the following:
Date format
No preference
16:12, January 15, 2001
16:12, 15 January 2001
16:12, 2001 January 15
I had the 2001-01-15T16:12:34 syntax chosen, must've been default, and I picked 16:12, January 15, 2001 then refreshed the WNU article page and yeppers - that worked. Thanks.
Rkowalke 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • YAY!!!! --Orlady 23:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning reference again after TallMagic's removal

Rkowalke, why do a bunch of your edit comments state "Cleaning reference again after TallMagic's removal"? TallMagic 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, you also state in another edit comment, "Reinserting pertinent link removed by TallMagic". Can you please be more careful and stop making what appear to me to be false assertions? TallMagic 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry TallMagic, I meant MarkTwain. You both have very similar traits...
Rkowalke 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You're rude and frequently make false statements. TallMagic 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... that's not what the archives say TallMagic regarding your assertions and my continually having to correct you with fact.
Now, must I bring up WP:GOODFAITH to you? After all, you have been on Wikipedia much longer than I when including your initial account.
Even if good faith is in doubt, assume good faith where you can, be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors.
And of course let's not forget WP:NPA:
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.
Let's focus on the article and not on the person. After all, we are all human and gosh, we do make mistakes.
Rkowalke 00:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's look at those article archives that you mentioned above, in particular the article history archives starting "23:16, 11 October 2007" and ending "23:38, 11 October 2007". In those 22 minutes you made nine false statements in edit comments that were rude fabrications. Nine false statements in a week would seem frequent to me yet you made those nine in just a few minutes, coupled with history, that qualifies for frequent in my opinion. I suggest that you be both civil and truthful so that it is reasonably possible to focus on the article rather than the person. TallMagic 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow TallMagic, nine false statements? I feel like I'm on trial here. And I rudely fabricated them? Oh myyyyy this is terrible. What are those false statements? Hmmm... let me go check. Ohhhhh you mean my mistake of putting your name down instead of "MarkTwain's" when I was re-editing references due to "MarkTwain's" continuing vandalism campaign. This statement below:
Cleaning reference again after TallMagic's removal...
Well I hope you don't stay up too late about it. Gosh, it was a mistake TallMagic. And we all make them now don't we?
Rkowalke 00:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
One problem is that this is not the first time that you have made this mistake. A second problem is that this seems to be part of an ongoing campaign on your part to be rude and assume bad faith. A third problem that this appears to follow a pattern showing that you seem to have a penchant for making false statements. Another example of you making a false statement was your assertion that you answered my question regarding the apparent inconsistency in saying that the GAO Investigation section should be dropped because it didn't fit into the WP:UNI outline yet your suggested outline contained multiple sections that weren't in the WP:UNI outline. So yes we all make mistakes but it appears that there is more to this "mistake" of yours than just a simple mistake. Please try harder to assume good faith, to be civil, and to be truthful. TallMagic 16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Another issue that I just discovered is what seems to be a misleadingly worded edit comment on this edit [2] the edit comment is "Removing "MarkTwain" peacock verbiage and entire sentences until wording is agreed upon in discussion." Which lead me to believe that the revert was only to Marktwain's edits plus the lead paragraph summary sentences but in actuality, Rkowalke apparently reverted Orlady edits as well. TallMagic 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Another example of pestering is the GAO mess above. Here we go again. The troll page does mention not feeding the troll so I won't bother to respond any further to this section.
Rkowalke 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
So, eight or nine times now I have asked the question and you have never directly responded to the question except with insult as above or to falsely state that you did answer the question. TallMagic 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Article or Advertisement or ?

Rkowalke, on the following edit, [3] you made the following edit comment, "Pulled out TallMagic, it references an article not an advert, but already have another reference so no biggie" what article is that that you referred to? What reliable source was the article part of? It looks more like some kind of advertisement, perhaps that KWU paid Google for since it states "Ads by Google" in multiple places, look here. Please explain what makes you think this is an article and not an advertisement, what lead you to believe that this was a WP:RS? Thanks, TallMagic 05:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The website together with the article appeared legit to me. However, I can see why you would think otherwise, which is why I removed. Enough said... Trolling: Pestering.
Rkowalke 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for responding to my question. Your trolling comment seems rude. Please try harder to be WP:civil. The reason for the question is that you seem to have a problem identifying Wikipedia reliable sources. I wanted to try to help you think about WP:RS more and perhaps read this important Wikipedia policy (again?). I also suggest that you read the WP:TROLL guideline more carfully and note that your comment above does not follow the suggested action in the very guideline that you cite. A much better guideline to follow though is WP:AGF. TallMagic 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the lecture TallMagic. The operative word in your huge writeup is "seems."
Please try harder to stop taking everything to the third degree and making accusations such as my trolling comment seems rude and then proceed to berate me for your misunderstanding.
You have pestered me in the past and this section is another example. Let me provide more of the paragraph as you seem to desire since you believe I've taken it out context or that it does not follow the suggested action:
Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves. Or they could just be lazy or confused. Of all the kinds of trolling, this is the most important kind not to get bent out of shape about. Be friendly about providing knowledge to people. That said, in extreme cases, this can be a method of trolling, and it is not inappropriate to ask someone to leave you alone once you have made a reasonable attempt to answer their questions.
Once it was deleted and I said I could see why you would think what you did, there was no need to discuss further, hence you're pestering and the relevance of trolling, which isn't the first time mind you. If I left the reference in then your supposed help with WP:RS would be applicable and interesting.
Rkowalke 21:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As another example of the apparent misunderstanding of WP:RS and why it is something that needed and still needs to be brought to Rkowalke's attention, please look at this supposed reliable source [4] that was added by this edit [5]. Here's the single sentence summary of WP:RS "This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is not third-party. It is not published from a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It doesn't seem to have anything that a reliable source is supposed to have yet, it was used as a reference. Please review WP:RS and try to be more careful. TallMagic 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes WP:RS is important TallMagic and I agree with WP:RS. As for the rest of your commentary... yawnnnn.
Rkowalke 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke returns to the discussion, 21 October 2007

Hello alllllll. I'm back after you're block TallMagic, which no one explicitly identified what I WP:3RR'd, which I did inquire about and neither you nor Alai, nor Nishkid64.
And not so fast with all the edits. I hope you and Orlady have been having fun, but not we need to discuss better what is going on here with all the removals you and Orlady have been conducting since my block started and your frenetic edits began. And in case you protest, I've put the blocks and highlighted in bold the removal frenzy below. I'll be back to deal with this situation soon enough.
  1. (cur) (last) 04:41, 21 October 2007 Orlady
(→Oregon lawsuit - spelled out ODA at first use (and link))
  1. (cur) (last) 02:22, 21 October 2007 Orlady
(→Oregon lawsuit - edited statement about settlement to eliminate the statement about the word "substandard" (see Talk page))
  1. (cur) (last) 22:23, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(→Campus - removed paragraph that provided a long book quote whose only purpose is to say that distance learning insitutions don't have campuses)
  1. (cur) (last) 22:15, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(yet more trimming of clutter (mostly redundant external link callouts)) (undo)
  1. (cur) (last) 21:35, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(more elimination of clutter)
  1. (cur) (last) 21:19, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(→Oregon lawsuit - removing some extraneous formatting and internal links (more edits are needed, but in the meantime this will make it easier to read))
  1. (cur) (last) 21:12, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(fix glitch in ref callout that caused it to be a redlink)
  1. (cur) (last) 21:10, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(fixed formatting of my last edit)
  1. (cur) (last) 21:09, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(clarified reference to LCCC is to an article in the student newspaper (not clear that this is a RS, but will keep for now))
  1. (cur) (last) 21:05, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(→Licensing - remove quotation from legislative hearing transcript (adds no factual value to article); checked to ensure that ref is not used elsewhere)
  1. (cur) (last) 21:01, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(→Licensing - misc. changes; mostly removal of some of the extra internal links; also removed some semi-parenthetical statements that seem totally unnecessary here (and disrupt flow))
  1. (cur) (last) 20:50, 20 October 2007 TallMagic
(→Electronic Enrollment - move up a level since this is not part of staff, (I personally think this whole section is uninformative and lacks notability.))
  1. (cur) (last) 20:42, 20 October 2007 TallMagic
(→Accreditation - remove statement that doesn't apply directly to WNU especially considering that WNU has applied for accreditation)
  1. (cur) (last) 20:36, 20 October 2007 TallMagic
(→Staff - remove unacceptable reference and exceedingly vague figures associated with it, please see WP:RS)
  1. (cur) (last) 17:48, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(converted one paragraph into a reference to support otherwise unsupported statement in summary paragraph)
  1. (cur) (last) 17:42, 20 October 2007 TallMagic
(Remove "for many years" from article summary statement that's not really supported by body article and removed fact tag)
  1. (cur) (last) 17:38, 20 October 2007 Orlady
(A few changes, mostly to remove some of the excessive verbiage, excess space, and excessive internal links)
Rkowalke 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Rkowalke, first a minor correction. It was not my block, it was your block because of your disruptive editting pattern. I'm not an admin and cannot block people in any case. I suggest that you try to more carefully follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm not sure what your point is regarding the edit history list. If the point of your edit list above is that the general quality of the article has improved and Orlady is primarily responsible then I'd have to agree. I always appreciate Orlady's edits as well. TallMagic 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

undo marktwain403 revert

I just undid an apparent revert (that didn't have any comment associated with it) that seemed to go back to an old version (16:43, 20 October 2007 Marktwain403) that was missing all of the recent enhancements since October 20. Please be more selective in your edits. TallMagic 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Marktwain403, you first reverted to the 16:43, 20 October 2007 version of the article see here[6]. Note that it says 43 intermediate edit versions not shown in between those two versions and there are zero differences. Then you apparently deleted more things in subsequent edits. This does not seem like a very productive edit pattern. Perhaps you could communicate on this talk page what your edits are meant to accomplish. TallMagic 06:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC) TallMagic 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop providing misleading edit summaries

I am personally offended (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) when a legitimate edit by me is reversed with an edit summary that says "Reverting vandalism" or otherwise falsely represents the nature of the change. We all make mistakes sometimes, but it is getting very difficult to assume good faith while interacting with contributors who very clearly have a strong self-interest in trying to make this article into a worshipful advertisement for WNU. These misleading edit summaries verge upon personal attacks. Please stop. --Orlady 16:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be sure to stay off my personal page Orlady. It is getting difficult interacting with contributors who very clearly are pushy and who threaten to sanction me and what not for making this article better than when I first arrived. I've put in plenty of time to get this article up to snuff and having to deal with this mess is outrageous especially when edit remarks only afford space for a certain amount of commentary. That I continued to edit the document after reviewing because I saw other stuff and saved the document without updating the edit page is hardly a sanctionable offense as you seem to want to engage against me as noted by your unwelcome commentary on my personal talk page. I'm trying to make this article better so how about you helping find information instead of attacking me when I find information. Your opinions about worshipful advertisement reflect your own problems with someone trying to find information for this page in support of WP:NPOV and WP:UNI. Please stop attacking me and get busy obtaining information for this WNU page to bring it up into a great article!
Rkowalke 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Your talk page is intended for use in communicating with you. It is not your personal space. Similarly, the WNU article does not belong to you. If you haven't figured it out, I don't actually care about WNU, so I actually have no particular interest in expanding the article. My only interest in this article stems from my interest in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. Candidly, I believe that the current quality of this particular article is such that the encyclopedia would be better off if the article were removed from article space. It's apparently a waste of my time to attempt to improve the article because you are determined to revert any changes anyone else makes, but it would be an even bigger waste of my time to attempt to expand the article -- it already includes an appalling number of meaningless factoids from dubious sources, so I doubt that much more could possibly be added. --Orlady 18:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeppers the talk page sure is about communicating with me. However, I have no communication with you that cannot be handled by this article page, nor do I desire any other contact by you.
As for your other commentary, why not recommend the article get removed like that unaccredited list of higher education institutions article, which you thought was beneficial to retain? You must have some interest in unaccredited institutions else you wouldn't be here nor would your edits indicate such. Your interest is hardly constrained only to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. It would appear it is also further refined to unaccredited institutions as well. Therefore, it would hardly be a waste of time to expand the article to better meet WP:UNI. We all have our interests though. Funny how few do anything about Marktwain's vandalism edits, but boy, let rkowalke make some edits that actually improve the article WP:NPOV and woahhhhh not so fast. I love the edit pattern because it says it all about what is going on. You see, it's not what people say, it's what they do that has the most meaning. If they say something and it is backed up by what they do then we have something, but when they say something and their behavior is otherwise, then the truth is extracted by their behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkowalke (talkcontribs) 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia user talk page is for communicationg with Wikipedia editors. It indicates a lack of understanding on your part if you think that communicating with you there is some kind of violation or personal affront. TallMagic 22:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted Marktwain's edits a number of times. While I don't always agree with his edits, he has never plagiarized, he's not a single purpose account, he's always been truthful on this talk page and in his edit summary comments, and he hasn't been overly uncivil despite your goading. I suggest that you consider turning over a new leaf, embrace WP:AGF, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:civil My personal view is that your current path leads to unhappy places for people that wish to be Wikipedia editors. TallMagic 22:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said a few weeks back, it will go on and on and on. A consensus on most edits will never be reached. Too many personal opinions and interests involved here with this article.Piggy ziffle 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually Piggy ziffle, we're getting fairly close to consensus on the article sans other editors extreme bias and the vandalism from frustrated and vindictive people -- at least for the most part. You should help to tighten up the consensus and add some information such as in the history section and what not. Think that would be a great help...
Rkowalke 02:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)